|
by Christopher Gerby As I'm writing this (1-10-2000), Fabrice Santoro is the #1 player in the world. Doesn't sound quite right, does it? Granted, Santoro is certainly a unique player -- he's the only one I can recall hitting a two-handed forehand drop shot, for instance -- but under no sensible criteria can he be considered the best on the planet. Santoro is not the best in the world on grass, on clay, on hard courts, or on carpet. Alas, to become #1 on the ATP Tour, all you need be is the best among a mediocre field for one week in Doha. That's grand news for fledgling German Rainer Schuttler, who won Doha last year and advanced to the final this time around, earning him a tie for second place in the ATP Tour rankings. But that's only fair, I suppose. After all, we recognize the proving grounds for the true tennis legends -- Roland Garros, Wimbledon, Flushing Meadows, Doha...? "I was told there hadn't been a French number one since 1927 or something like that. But that doesn't mean much," declared Santoro after taking the lead in the ATP Tour's new "Champions Race" rankings. You can say that again, Fabrice. The title of #1 tennis player in the world used to mean something. Ever since the ATP Tour first established its world rankings in 1973, the top spot has been reserved for a handful of the game's elite players. Now, thanks to the overhaul the ranking system has been given by the powers that be in men's tennis, the honor means very little indeed. Sure, we all heard the complaints about the ranking having lost its relevance last year, when Yevgeny Kafelnikov became the world's #1 in the midst of an ugly losing streak. What the critics seemingly failed to recall was that Kafelnikov had WON THE AUSTRALIAN OPEN just a few months earlier. He would have been ranked #1 under either the ATP's old "Best 14" system (which measured a player's performance over the past 52 weeks) or the new "Champions Race" (where all players start the calendar year with zero points). As Thomas Muster said of the old system, ATP ranking points can't be purchased at the supermarket. With his Grand Slam triumph and his uncanny ability to play well on any surface, Kafelnikov earned that #1 ranking fair and square. The accomplishment happened to come about while he was in a tailspin, but he got there because of what he'd accomplished over the course of a year. He absolutely did more than win a few matches over journeymen out in Doha. Perhaps the most maddening aspect of the ATP Tour's new ranking scheme is the implicit admission that it doesn't accurately reflect who the best players in the world are. While it trumps up the "Champions Race" standings, the ATP quietly maintains a real, logical set of rankings (now dubbed the "ATP Entry System") which are still used to determine seeding and main draw entries. In other words, for a player who wants to know where he'll be seeded in the next tournament or whether he'll get straight into a given tournament without having to play qualifying matches, the "Champions Race" rankings mean nothing. That player would instead have to consult the true rankings...assuming he can find them. The Entry System standings remain unpublished, as far as I can tell. Check the ATP's otherwise comprehensive web site and those updated rankings are nowhere to be found (although you'll get several links encouraging you to check out the Champions Race). Simplicity was the stated goal when the ATP Tour unveiled its new ranking system, but where is the simplicity in having TWO separate lists, particularly when the one which actually has a binding impact on the tournaments is KEPT SECRET?!? For the time being, players like Sunil Kumar and Sultan Khalfan are ranked ahead of Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras on the list the ATP Tour insists we pay attention to. Will that situation sort itself out eventually? Yes, but the Champions Race won't yield a halfway accurate rankings list until November, when the season comes to an end. Players like Richard Krajicek and Greg Rusedski -- who rely on the late-season indoor tournaments for so many of their points -- will have misleadingly low rankings for the first half of the season. It may not sound like much of a problem, but it's going to be a daily annoyance so long as the ATP Tour promotes its Champions Race standings and hides its Entry List standings. Tennis commentators will be in the position of saying things like, "The top two players in the world square off in today's first round match" or "So-And-So is the #12 seed here...and he's ranked #257 in the world." For instance, Agassi is tied for dead last in the Champions Race (he has no more points there than myself or Regis Philbin or Bugs Bunny), but will be the top seed at this month's Australian Open. Conversely, a player near the top of the Champions Race could find himself unable to even participate in the tour's most significant events. Heretofore unheralded German Markus Hantschk -- tied for 5th in the world in these new phony rankings -- will have to win three qualifying matches just to earn a place in the Australian Open's 128-player main draw! This is supposed to be LESS confusing than the old Best 14 ranking system? In its rush to devise a ranking system which seems logical to the casual fan, the ATP Tour has cut off its nose to spite its face. The original system, while not perfect, was laudable in its ability to give a fair assessment of who the best overall tennis players in the world are. It took into account a player's accomplishments over a 12-month period, thereby giving due credit to clay court specialists and fast court standouts alike. If you want to measure "who has won the most in this particular calendar year," the Champions Race system is ideal. If you want to measure "who are the best players in the world," it is a woefully inadequate mess. |